Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Tue, 07 February 2017 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F157A129599; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:38:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K9NMPxtO1urB; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C20C129449; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2017 19:38:18 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D77CD788A; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:38:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=l5OX5FOYlEpBPplGmr1OiT94SZ8=; b= f1DYK3szmkV0XtgiyFoxJYODZZQ2DA4amMXAr98PQf1NeIATjerfAPHrCoGpzjA+ WaIM0oG7r9aMiJwUVK1CPsG0ZN1B9LKXLSiyfK3wG8CC/ZcvSqEywdbrAqK9D2YG 4iwA9fzz/I6Rh0k4Ya3vBAGoNVWDWMldt/+w4plLUR4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=f/M8GPch23xgTeddMsNE4LV nW85WKN78w9Pnxr49IcgFgMmPZMrlevV5VtmnP7NnmzMbsUfR4d3kqbbEJgkqISd ZstqeO0xJyLVFiHqru9jMXMtX6UoEtUUitgtF81kAui/cvXO02bV8DnCclGzPVCX sKOMNt23q7UTkq4sh3fQ=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCD63D788E; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018FD865E9F1; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:38:15 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <757E0263-7801-49D3-8A3D-8B5E2BD9C96D@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2001CC1C-F1C0-4DF3-BB06-90280A1A8F86"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:38:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <b07dcffe-107a-a777-2d03-57931088d842@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <b07dcffe-107a-a777-2d03-57931088d842@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EEfJvN1I1kicBtR3Obir6Tei6jM>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, "Stefano Previdi \(sprevidi\)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:38:20 -0000

Joe,

> Can anyone give those of us not tracking 672 messages a brief summary?
> IMO, without diving into that thread deeply, I agree with the new proposed text below from Brian:

Posted to list on Satuday.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MJexpTisUTSN2XrkkYVVLPJrjFM/?qid=8e4597241d656835af9f01439581f375

>>    With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
>>    deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
>>    the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
>>    of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
>>    header.
>> 
> In fact, I'd go further to say that that non-HBH EHs should not even be *viewed* or used as context by intermediate nodes.
> 
> And any limits on what can be done with HBH EHs should be stated explicitly. I'd be glad if at least the EH lengths didn't change.

The original intent of the IPv6 design was certainly that. Routers should have no need to look beyond the first 40 byte header (with one exception) and everything else was end to end encrypted so there wouldn't be any purpose looking there anyway.

We might get into trouble with the implementation report.
If anyone knows of any implementation, software or hardware that is compliant with that, I'd certainly like to know. :-)

Best regards,
Ole